^ 608 
»65 R4 
spy 1 




On the Nature and Control of the White 
Pine Blister Rust 

Copyright, 1920, by Fred Reinlein, 1751 Derby St., 
Portland, Ore. 

Circular No. 158. Date of Final Printing, April 19, 1920 

WHAT is claimed by the Office of Forest Pathology, 
of the Bureau of Plant Industry, to be a correct 
analysis of the nature of a disease killing white 
pines is given under the above name in Farmers' Bulletin No. 
742, written by Dr. Perley Spaulding. The disease is there 
claimed to be "caused by a parasitic fungus" (p. 1). 

In my Circular No. 152, pp. 26 to 32, issued in 1918, 1 
showed that the disease that really kills the pine^ is bacterial 
in nature, and that what parasitic fungus occurs on .the pines 
is merely the hibernating form of a fungus affecting currant 
and gooseberry bushes in summer, and I claimed that if the 
currants and gooseberries were eradicated, "the disease that 
is killing the pines is there as before'' (p. 28). 

I tried to get Dr. Spaulding to criticize the evidence I 
submitted, but in vain. I then made the same effort with 
several State Pathologists that had done research work in 
this line. Of these Pathologists, only Prof. F. C. Steward, 
of the New York State Experiment Station at Geneva, made 
a reply. Mr. Steward, with Mr. W. H. Rankin, had gotten 
out State Bulletin No. 374: "Does Cronartium rebicola over 



^^I^-^ 



winter on the currant?" M. rSteward stated: " I P^^' T^^ 

fer not to make any statement concerning the pine blister rust 
except to say that your theory as to the nature of the disease 
is entirely incorrect." 

''Since the white pines of the United States are estimated 
to be worth $42:3,000,000 and those of Canada '$200,000,000 
additional it is felt that no chances of a further spread of the 
blister rust can be taken" (Farm Bui. No. 1024, p. 25). Thus 
since the Bureau of Plant Industry professes to be wanting 
to serve the interests of the public, they ought to be eager to 
criticize the more complete evidence in support of my claims 
I am now going to submit. 

The life circuit of the white pine blister rust fungus as 
understood and illustrated by Mr. Spaulding in Figure 4 of 
Farmers' Bulletin No. 742 is just what I claim it in my Cir- 
cular No. 142 to be — the circuit of a fungus affecting currant 
leaves in summer and hibernating on diseased parts of 
pine in winter. No reference is made in Figure 4 and 
accompanying text to pycnidial drops and to pycnospores liv- 
ing in them, nor to their appearance before the spring form of 
the rust, the peridermium spores, appear on the swollen or al- 
ready cankerous bark. 

Unsupported theory enters through Dr. Spaulding claim- 
ing on page 11 that these pycnidial drops are merely indicators 
of the disease, meaning by the disease the rust fungus, but 
understanding by rust fungus in this case not merely the cir- 
cuit formed by teliospores lodging upon pine in the fall and 
generating peridermium spores on pine in the spring and these 

, ; ~^"' ©CiA5686e4 

MAMO Ib.o 



peridermium spores generating uredospores on currants, and 
these uredospores by late summer generating teliospores on 
currants as given in Figure 4, but also wanting it understood 
that the canker killing the pines is caused by these forms of 
rust ; in other words Dr Spaulding wants it understood, that 
the swelling of the diseased parts and the formation of pycni- 
dial drops is merely incidental to the life circuit on pine of a 
rust that in summer lives on currants. 

On the other hand I not only put up the theory that these 
pycnidial drops serve a purpose, but also showed that they 
have nothing to do directly with the life circuit of the rust 

fungus, since they occur both "early in the spring or 

they may occur apparently at almost any season in late sum- 
mer and fall "(F. B. 742, p. 11). I showed that as the fungus 
disease is in summer admittedly absent from pines, the or- 
igin of pycnidial drops "with immense numbers of tiny 
sporebodies" (p. 11) occurring during summer and fall on 
pine cannot be ascribed to the rust fungus, I having originally 
specifically pointed out that there are then no teliospores 
present to produce them, since these only occur in the fall. 

**What the function of these tiny spores "(pycnospores, 

living in the pycnidial drops)" may be nobody knows 

They are simply indicators of the disease" (p. 11). Talk 
about theory. First, Dr. Spaulding says, nobody knows what 
they are, and then he claims to know what they are. Not 
only this, but he expressly claims they have their origin 
through the hibernating form (teliospores) of the rust fungus 
''The teliospores, falling upon bark of suitable age on a white 

—3— 



pine, may in turn germinate, penetrate the bark and grow in 
the inner layers during the incubation period already men- 
tioned" (p. 14). The incubation period lasts without outward 
sign from less than a year to 6 or more years (p. 11). "This 
infection of the pine bark must take place in the late summer 
of fall. If the parasite "(the teliospore)'' finds condtiions 
very favorable, it may produce the sw^eetish drops of liquid 
with the pycnospores early the next spring and shortly after 
that it may produce the blisters containing the peridermium 
spores. . . " (p. 14). This is on a par with saying that a 
potato planted for a crop can, for an indicator of a crop, first 
hatch a chicken—for I shall show that the pycnospores are mi- 
crobes, which are considered to be of animal life — and then 
later, for a crop, produce a bunch of tubers. 

As stated before the life circuit of the fungus admittedly 
does not require any pycnospores to complete it. Then how- 
is Dr. Spaulding to prove his claim that teliospores produce 
the pycnidial drops, with the pycnospores they contain? Not 
only can he not prove his contention, but it can be shown 
that a teliospore falling upon previously diseased bark pro- 
duces a blister of peridermium spores in the spring and noth- 
ing else. This, I have to admit, was not very clearly shown 
in my Circular No. 152. I merely there stated that as the 
pycnidial drops containing pycnospores occur besides in the 
spring also "apparently at almost any season in late summer 
and fall," it follows they cannot be caused by teliospores, as 
these are just then forming upon currant leaves and are blown 

—4— 



to pines by the wind, requiring- development within the bark 
before they can produce anything. 

That the bark must be already diseased before a telio- 
spore can sprout on it, is shown, in addition, by the fact that 
the teliospores produce the peridermium spores only in cer- 
tain places, shown to be diseased by a swelling or a canker, 
whereas these teliospores are blow^n by the wind all over the 
tree, as would snowflakes for instance. Hence, if they could 
sprout on sound bark, peridermium spores would appear on 
all of the bark of suitable age in the spring. And having thus 
shoAvn that teliospores sprout only on diseased bark, this 
means they cannot infect sound bark to start the disease that 
produces the diseased bark, which proves that we have to do 
with two distinct diseases, as claimed, one which we will call 
and which really is a bacterial disease — the disease that really 
kills the pines — and another, a rust fungus, living in summer 
on currant leaves and in winter on pine bark, diseased by a 
canker in various stages of development. The teliospore is 
credited with having started in some cases the disease as long 
as 6 or more years before it becomes outwardly visible through 
swelling of the bark and the appearance of pycnidial drops. 
But no proof whatever is given that a spore of a parasitic fun- 
gus ever could do such a thing. But then "The life history 
of this parasite is very complex" (p. 11), according to Dr. 
Spaulding, after giving in Figure 4 what he declares to be, and 
in reality is, the life circuit of the causal fungus of the white 
pine blister rust, a circuit of fungus as can be ''paralleled by a 
great number of related fungi" (p. 11). I would appreciate 

—5— 



having one or two of such most closely related fungi specific- 
ally mentioned. 

The trouble affecting the pines can be explained therefore 
in a perfectly satisfactory manner only by assuming that the 
pycnospores are microbes similar to those contained in similar 
exudations occurring in pear blight and, other cankerous dis- 
seases, that they are carried by insects, or possibly birds, or 
other agencies to bark of suitable age on other pines and by 
stinging or rasping or possibly merely smearing are thus giv- 
en access to the tissues. It is hard to see how there can be 
much proof to show that the disease was present a specified 
time, such as 6 or more years, before swelling of the bark 
made it apparent. There appears to be no record that a fungus 
can cause such swelling, but there is ample record that mi- 
crobes can. This swelling, it is reasonable to assume, is due 
to congestion of diseased sap and the pycnidial drops are the 
natural result. The pycnospores therefore must be assumed 
to be a form of low animal organism working in the tissues. 
This is further indicated by an examination of Figure 4 and 
Plate I which show very little swelling left by the time the 
peridermium spores appear. Each peridermium spore cluster 
there shown is clearly the result of a successful infestation by 
one teliospore the fall before, each cluster developing inde- 
pendently of the other. An examination will show that these 
peridermium clusters cannot apparently utilize any great 
amount of sap ; to all appearances they merely utilize as much 
sap in comparison with their size as do uredospores and telio- 
spores, the summer and fall form of the rust, on currant leaves. 



The text accompanying Figure 4 claims in part: '" . . . 
The late summer stage . . . infects neighboring white pine 
which may and may not include the pine which bore the blis- 
ters that started the outbreak the preceding spring." Now 
" . . . . No tree infected with this disease has ever been 
known to recover. . . " (F. B. No. 1024, p. 23). Hence you 
here have an admission that a tree may not have been re-in- 
fested with teliospores the fall before and yet in any case re- 
mained diseased the following summer. This proves that des- 
truction of all currants and gooseberries within range of in- 
fection does not stop the disease that kills^the pines. 

It dos not follow from this that there is no connection, 
between the presence of currants and gooseberries and the 
spread of the bacterial disease that kills the pines. There 
certainly does seem to exist a connection. The insect or other 
agent that carries most of the pycnidial fluid to other pines 
may be attracted by the blooms of currants and gooseberries 
and later by the fruit. Or the insect may be predaceous upon 
the currant aphis. O'r it may be parasitic upon the currant 
Avorm. Removal of currants and gooseberries would then 
tend to keep the insect away. On th other hand once some 
pines produce pycnidial drops there is no reason to believe 
that since these pycnidial drops are attractive to insects on 
their own account mere removal of currants and gooseberries 
everywhere would prevent all future infection. 

Since therefore we must look upon the removal of cur- 
rants and gooseberries near white pine as a step likely to re- 
duce the degree of infection, the question of how this is best 

—7— 



accomplished is to be considered, 
sprays are being tested in the hope of finding a cheap and 
practical means of killing wild Ribes. The results obtained 
indicate that dip oil, fuel oil and possibly sodium arsenite 
can be used economically to destroy dense growths of Ribes 
where the cost of hand pulling is excessive" (1919 Report, 
Bureau of Plant Industry, p. 39). 

Nothing cheaper or more practical for killing wild ribes 
will be found than a light, longhandled pick ax, one end 
pointed and the other with a one or two-inch transverse cut- 
ting edge. This allows of grubbing, cutting, yanking and 
pulling, all without any hanil pulling, except possibly some 
torn off roots that might otherwise sucker. 

Substantially this same cour^^e holds good in the present 
campaign for the removal of barberry bushes, a plant that 
is necessary as an alternate food plant in the spread of the 
black stem rust in latitudes where the summer form of rust 
cannot hibernate. "The number of localities in which wild 
bushes are found is immensely larger than was believed.... 
the seeds having been sown in large numbers in thickets and 
woodlands by wild birds. The difficulty of locating such 
bushes in rough and broken timberland, oftentimes amid 
thickets and underbrush will be appreciated by any one who 
undertakes it...." (1919, Report, Bureau of Plant Industry, 
p. 33). 

The difficulty of removing will be still more appreciated 
than that of locating if it is to be done by the official method 
recommended and shown on page 1 of Farmers' Bulletin 



Xo. 1085 as : "The proper wa}' to remove barberry bushes. Dig- 
deep enough to get all the roots." A bush about -i feet high is 
there shown, on smooth ground and isolated, as being dug- 
out with a spade. It is false to claim that you need all the 
roots. You do need all of the surface roots. The roots going- 
down can be cut off below the root stock. An attempt to 
w^ork a spade in a thicket on a 1'3 foot bush would result 
likely in cutting some top roots to pieces, causing suckers. 
In thickets, or with bushes growing among heavy clumps 
of grasses or among rocks, a pick ax with usual length of 
handle, one end pointed and the other cutting one or two 
inches transversely will first tear the surface roots off, they 
to be pulled out then whole by hand, and the taproots, which 
do not sucker, can then be cut or yanked off", making work 
very thorough and comparatively very easy in the most diffi- 
cult situations. 

This then removes one of the best food plants the wild 
birds have and means corresponding decrease in the abund- 
ance of the birds, or else a necessity on their parts to make up 
.this loss on cultivated crops. 

If a man is able to show nothing further than that the 
cankerous disease that kills the pines exists independently 
of the fungus rust affecting leaves of currants and goose- 
berries in summer and hibernating on diseased parts of pine, 
he has shown something of great value to the forest in- 
terests of the country especially in the infested territory and 
still more so in the territory infested by the gypsy moth. 
It means that the removal of currants and gooseberries, en- 



lirely, or within certain zones considered safe by the Bureau 
of Plant Industry, does not result in stopping all spread of the 
disease that kills the pines as claimed by the Bureau. It 
means that as long as a satisfactory way to reduce the num- 
bers of carriers of pycnidial fluid yet present after the cur- 
rants and gooseberries have been removed is not found, 
planting white pine is virtually certain to be money thrown 
away. 

No satisfactory remedy is in sight or likely to come in 
sight, hence it is clear that the interests of all the country at 
large demand that the public be told the truth. The Depart- 
ment of Agriculture is created and gets each year a nice hand- 
ful of shekels to promote agriculture in its broadest sense and 
not to humbug the people with their own good money, or at 
least with part of it. Moreover this matter is entirely inde- 
pendent of the many other issues relating to insect and fun- 
gus control on which the Department of Agriculture has 
during the past 22 years been too bashful to make any state- 
ments, a matter discussed in my Circulars No. 155 to 157. 

"Moreover, within the area worst affected by the gipsy- 
moth, the forests are being converted into white pine" (upon 
the advice, or at least with the knowledge, of the supposedly 
learned and honest men of the Bureau of Entomology, that 
want to shut their eyes so the fact, that the European pine 
shootmoth is now there to ruin what might escape the gipsy- 
moth) "as rapidly as possible, because this species is far the 
most valuable one which is Hot seriously injured by this in- 
sect. More than this the white pine, in many sections at 

—10- 

I 



least, is much the most valuable tree now available for future 
forests. Its loss would be a real catastrophe, for no other 
tree can take its place" (F. B. No. 742, p. 6). 

"Many of the so-called hard pines, having leaves in twos 
and threes, have been exposed to infestation in Europe but 
have never taken the disease. . . " But the planting of hard 
pines cannot unconditionally be recommended either, because 
of the presence of the European pine shoot moth, which 
by preference attacks the apical bud and causes crook- 
ed and stunted pines, for the control of which moth 
the Bureau has no feasible means of control. A proper sys- 
tem of control has been described by me as far back as 1915 
in my Circular No. 145. A short description is given on pages 
5, 17 to 20, and on page 22 of my Circular 'No. 155. It con- 
sists in pouring some semi-liquid clay before oviposition be- 
gins into the apical whorl of buds. The moths then oviposit on 
the lateral branches. This use of clay is feasible only on the 
smaller trees. To protect the trees at large a system of light 
trapping by using some such torch as shown on last page in 
conjunction with certain fittings and a steaming sweetened 
decoction of pine twigs was described by me in Circular No. 
155. No official action was taken, this system of trapping 
having been evolved during the past 5 years. It has been 
pointed out to the Bureau of Entomology that such a trap 
would be of value in controlling the giysy moth in woodlands 
by trapping the males. The Bureau Avas all the more urged 
to test this matter out, as I wanted to get fair treatment before 
I would describe a device I have in mind that will take care 

—11— 



of insects that go to electric lights. For the present there is 
nothing better available in this case than a torch trap, same 
as to be used in the woods, to be mounted near such lights 
and to be used in connection with sweet smelling sub- 
stances as described in Circular No. 155. 

In addition I pointed out as a means of controlling the gip- 
sy moth that the woodlands could be made to support large 
flocks of poultry, that poultry could pick there the largest 
part of their keep most of the year, and could secure young 
caterpillars of the gipsy moth through the habit of these 
caterpillars of letting themselves down to the ground some- 
times, could secure and eat as many of the large caterpillars 
that crawl down the trunk towards morning to hide near the 
base as they can stand, could find and eat eggs on or near the 
ground and could find many of the females hiding on the 
ground or on the underbrush during the day. I showed that 
poultry could thus also keep down many other insects and 
could fatten largely on acorns in the fall, and that v^ith these 
means of control available it is all wrong to advise the sup- 
pression of oak in favor of planted white pine. 

Having shown that the disease, which kills white pine and 
which furnishes in bark thus diseased the means for complet- 
ing the life cycle of a rust affecting currant leaves in summer, 
is caused by a low animal organism similar to that causing 
pear blight, what means are there for its control? 

"... The disease may kill the largest tree " 

(F. B. No. 742, p. 6). 'The blister rust first attacks the 
twigs of a pine tree and then gradually works into the larger 

—12— 



branches and the trunk" (F. B. No. 1024, p. 23), ** . . . an 
old tree ... is likely to have everyone of its lateral branches 
as well as the top center shoot, attacked and finally killed" 
(F. B. No. 742, p. 6). 

It is evident that the disease is spread by some agency 
such as an insect or a bird picking on the pycnidial drops and 
carrying the pycnospores to other pine. A tree grown for 
timber and subject to various diseases and insects throughout 
its life cannot stand much expense for treatment at anyone 
time. Hence the mosi feasible means of control seems to 
consist in trying to destroy or keep away the carriers from 
the pycnidial drops. These drops, when the disease is well 
established, will be usually out of reach. It is not even likely 
that it would pay to give special attention to each tree where 
these drops are within reach once there is general infestation. 
However one such means for smaller trees I pointed out on 
page 31 of my Circular No. 152: *'.... the most feasible 
course consists in taking a Httle white pine — or other handy 
evergreen branch and slap this about the infested parts of*the 
pines and do this w^hile the pycnidial drops are present, es- 
pecially in the spring. It would seem certain that this causes 
the pycnidial drops to dry up, thus killing the microbes they 
contain. . . ." A further suggestion : Where the canker is 
near the ground,, soil might be ridged up to it. If too high, 
soil dug with a spade and thrown into the branches and stick- 
ing to the canker might help to dry up the pycnidial drops. 
With an evergreen branch these drops could be brushed off 
when occurring at considerable hight. I repeat I do not think 

—13— 



it could be made to pay. 

It must be borne in mind that pines thus affected by th^ 
disease, because of their wealcened condition, invite borers 
and that at present there is no practical official means of con- 
trol for these. The official means advocated is the removal 
of infested trees while dormant. Thus in one of two pine 
trees, located about 1 1-4 miles from the New York State 
Experiment Station and traced through infecting currants 
near by to be the source of rust infestation on currants at the 
station, Mr. Steward found borers working. These borers 
could be trapped in large numbers by the use of a torch trap 
as previously referred to. In doing this the presence of other 
insects present — injurious, beneficial and neutral — must also 
be considered. The Bureau of Entomology ne\'er took this 
matter up, although shown the need in many ways for the 
past seven years in my Circulars No. 139 to 157. With a 
proper system of trapping carried on with a view to control 
insects amenable to trapping in general many trees can be 
profitably saved that otherwise would succumb. 

It might be that the cankerous disease in question is 
spread by borers and trapping them as fast as possible would 
then be the most feasible means. If, as is more likely, flies, 
wasps and bees spread it, there seem two ways open to give 
relief. First, provide, if possible, suitable food plants that 
furnish nectar to draw them away from the sweet-tasting 
pycnidial drops, and, second, if the first course is not possible 
because of absence of clear land near by, use repellants to 
drive them away. It should be possible in the majority of 

—14— 



cases to use a barrel spray pump fastened on a pointed stone- 
boat for the application of some such deterrent spray as crude 
oil to the trunks of some of the big trees, just enough to ren- 
der the grove uninviting to the carriers. Or the opposite 
course might be used : Scented poisoned sweets might be ex- 
posed to draw them away from the sweet-tasting drops. Of 
course it would have to be determined to whot extent thus 
beneficial insects like bees are destroyed. In that case the 
carriers might be fed on unpoisoned sweets in an effort to 
draw them away. Young trees might be protected by spray- 
ing some kind of rubbish such as straw, weeds, evergreen 
twigs with some repellant such as crude oil and distribute 
them over or among the trees. 

As for the rust on currants "... spraying has not 
proved practical or successful in preventing infection or in 
killing the fungus after it attacks the currant and gooseber- 
ry leaves ..." (F. B. No. 1024, p. 24). I quote for a remedy 
from my Circular No. 152, p. 28) : ** . . . The fungus disease 
on currants can easiest be kept*down by an occasional slight 
licking of the underside of the leaves with a hot air blast 
torch, a suitable type of which is shown on last page. This 
was pointed out by me as far back as 1898, but the Bureau of 
Plant Industry never made any tests to satisfy themselves." 
Such licking would cause the voracious larvae of the two- 
brooded imported currant worm to drop to the ground to be 
killed there by the heat at close range. The Bureau of Ento- 
mology advises the use of poison. This at best is successful 
only with small worms and does not go well together with 

—15— 



ripening fruit. Sucking insects like scales and lice readily 
succumb to occasional swift lickings with a blast. 

Another very serious danger now threatens the pines of 
the East. This is the European pine saw fly. It was first 
discovered in Connecticut in 1914 and is described in the Con- 
necticut Experiment Station report for 1915. I quote : "This 
species is one of the most injurious saw flies on European 
conifers ... it has a large number of host trees . . and . . . 
would do a great deal of damage . . . " (p. 119). It has two 
broods in Connecticut. In the breeding cages all cocoons 
(of both broods) were made on twigs. 'Tn Europe, raking up 
and destroying the leaves and other rubbish under the trees 
in fall is recommended to destroy the cocoons" (of the hiber- 
nating brood). If the cocoons of the second brood are on the 
ground, there is one means of control feasible — the use of 
poultry on a large scale. But if the hibernating cocoons are 
made on twigs no means of control is feasible since the use 
of arsenicals on timber tre^s to kill the larvae is out of 
question. One conceivable means of control would be the 
attraction of the adults to poisoned sweetened baits, always 
involving the risk of poisoning many beneficial insects. Also 
poultry might destro}'- such larvae as fall down or are blown 
down by wind, suspend themselves near the ground or crawl 
over the ground to other trees in case of shortage of food. 

This pest may be present in many other places right now, 
similarly as was the case with the European pine shoot moth 
after it was discovered in 1914 when it was found within 9 
months "in 20 localities in 9 states with very strong indica- 

—16— 



tions of infestations in several widely distributed localities." 
As for the cankerous disease affecting the varieties of 
white pine the disease will either wipe them out or there will 
survive some trees entirely or partly immune, the seed from 
which will finally serve for new stock. In any case this is a 
bad time for the Department of Agriculture to advise the 
planting of white pine, the more so now that it has been 
shown that the disease exists independently of currants, and 
that there is no promise that palliative measures can be made 
to pay. It is therefore the plain duty of the Department of 
Agriculture in this matter to admit that I am right or show 
why I should be wrong, something they were wanted to do in 
regard to other issues pending for 22 years past. 

What other tree might then be handy to fill the place 
of pine? In conifers larch would probably best do that. Its 
chief enemy is the larch sawfly. This insect has been at times 
very destructive because no official means of control was 
known. As far back as my Circular No. 149, p. 16, I pointed 
out, that since this fly is present as larva or pupa in a cocoon 
on the ground 10 months out of 12, it could be easily con- 
trolled by the use of poultry. According to the U. S. Hum- 
Bugologist this with all else I ever wrote in the matter of 
insect control is wrong. 

Of deciduous trees the catalpa is one of the best for grow- 
ing timber. The gipsy moth virtually cannot live on it. It is 
however attacked by the catalpa sphinx, which frequently 
causes complete defoliation. There is no practical official 
means of control, since the use of arsenical sprays for the 

—17— 



larvae and "to spade up the ground thoroughl yand disinteg- 
rate it in the fall so as to destroy the pupae, .concentrated — 
in the immediate vicinity of the trunk" (F. B. No. 705, p. 9) 
advocated by the Bureau are out of question on a tree grown 
for timber. On page 8 of my circular No. 149, I pointed out 
that since the insect pupates in the rubbish under the trees, 
giving poultry the run of the woods, keeps the pest under 
control. But the U. S. Bum-Bugologist says I am wrong, 
thus not only withholding official endorsement of a good 
method, but actually fighting it contrary to the interests of 
the people. 



c^ 





The Reinleln 

Knapsack 
Gasoline Torch. 

PatPiit No. 7 39, "221 
Sept. 15, 1903 



—18— 



LlBBARy.OF.COSS,^' 



021 490 278 3 



w 



